Tim Bass
11-24-2008 12:39 PM
Folks are worried about the future of CEP.

Vendors have spun so much misinformation around the term “CEP” that this three letter acronym (TLA) has begun to have little meaning other than to reflect a confusing web of solutions overhyped around a few relatively simple stream processing engines, used primarily in financial services.* Frankly speaking,* in the fields where real-time detection is critical and very difficult, for example network and security management, we can’t find a compelling selection criteria for any of these first generation ESP engines.** Many, in fact, have begun to express a preference for software solutions in more common and widely supported programming languages (like PERL, Java or C++) versus a proprietary vendor engine and their single-vendor languages.

We used to have a bit of faith in the site, Complex Events, because we enjoyed reading topics like how CEP can be used in “future world” event processing scenarios like global air traffic control or complex weather monitoring.*** Unfortunately that site still provides no details on how to accomplish the grand vision of “CEP” other than to permit marketeers to use the term “CEP” as they see fit, for better-or-for-worse, mostly for worse.* The fact of the matter is that ESP vendors are using “CEP” in ways that have almost zero to do with the complex set of detection-oriented problems CEP was originally funded (by the US military) to address.** We certainly can’t find any compelling criteria to justify proprietary ESP engines, especially since we are not into algo trading, order routing, or simple rule-based compliance problems.* And, to make matters more worrisome,* I have been reading a number of discussions from algo trading and order routing experts who have the same doubts.

It is no secret that solution architects (like me) are becoming dissapointed in where things are headed in the CEP space.* When I first read Coral8’s Comprehensive Guide to Evaluating Event Stream Processing Engines over two years ago, I thought little about it, quite frankly, and basically dismissed it as Coral8 marketing material.* Opher Etzion wrote a great critique, On Evaluation Criteria for EP Products. I will not repeat Opher’s excellent critique in this post.** Responding to event processing misinformation, as I pointed out in an earlier post, is taking way too much time.** I will say that it is even more disappointing to have to respond to misinformation that is almost three years old.* Why, nearly three years after this marketing propaganda was published, did someone feel inclined to publish it again as front page news?

Admittedly, I am worried about the future of CEP.* The recent thread on the CEP Forum,* What’s the difference between a Blog and a Forum? did not help, frankly speaking.** Maybe I am wrong, but it seems to me we don’t really need to be discussing the differences between forums and blogs in a CEP discussion forum. ** We have bigger fish to fry, as they say.* Furthermore, does Professor Luckham really need to publish three year old marketing collateral from Coral8 as front page news on the Complex Events “vendor neutral” site?

It is no secret, folks are worried about the future of complex event processing.



Source...